United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2022

(HC) Quintero v. Warden Tristan

(HC) Quintero v. Warden Tristan
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided October 20, 2022
(HC) Quintero v. Warden Tristan

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL RODRIGUEZ QUINTERO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01319-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WARDEN TRISTAN LEMON, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner Daniel Rodriguez Quintero is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

19 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 27 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Section 2241 further states that a district court, “in the exercise of its | district for hearing and determination. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court | may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it might have been brought” | for convenience of parties or “in the interest of Justice’).

4 Here, Petitioner is challenging his criminal conviction in the San Diego County Superior | Court, and thus, the petition is preferably heard in the district of conviction, which is the | Southern District of California. Therefore, this action will be transferred. This Court has not | ruled on Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the | United States District Court for the Southern District of California. i IT IS SO ORDERED.

12| Dated: _ October 19, 2022 [see ey —— 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.